Call for Papers
Spring 2027 Symposium
The Uncertain Boundaries of Privacy: Technology, Law, & the Individual
Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law and the Nova Law Review are seeking submissions for its annual Symposium issue, to be published in 2027. The Uncertain Boundaries of Privacy: Technology, Law, & the Individual, will provide an opportunity for scholars and professionals to address the effect rapid advancements in technology has on one’s own sense of “privacy.” For context, one panel will discuss the impact Flock cameras have on the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Nova Law Review is seeking submission of an article on the following topic:
Rapid advancements in generative Artificial Intelligence AI and natural-language interfaces have created a tension between the subjective experience of privacy and the legal protections afforded to these communications. Conversational AI platforms can foster an inherent sense of privacy and personal intimacy, encouraging clients, unrepresented litigants, and individuals to disclose sensitive thoughts, legal strategies, and personal information. Yet, courts are deeply divided on whether these disclosures compromise attorney-client privilege and work-product protection or remain protected when AI functions as a “tool.” At the same time, the growing use of AI raises questions of systemic equity. In particular, well-resourced litigants gain access to law firms with secure “enterprise” AI systems, while pro se and underfunded litigants may be forced to rely on publicly available platforms, carrying substantially different legal protections. We invite paper submissions and article proposals examining the legal ramifications of AI on: (1) the “work product” doctrine; (2) attorney-client privilege; the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality and/or (4) any policy implications in equity.
Specific Issues & Research Tracks Ripe for Discussion:
(1) How conversational natural-language interfaces create an illusion of intimacy while commercial privacy policies—which permit data retention, model training, and regulatory disclosure—arguably eliminate any “reasonable expectation of confidentiality.”
(2) Doctrinal conflict between courts that treat AI queries as third-party disclosures that waive privilege versus courts that hold AI tools function merely as modern tools that preserve work-product mental impressions.
(3) Whether client or attorney-initiated AI consultations should be extended protection under Kovel, which historically shields confidential communications with non-attorney third parties who facilitate legal representation.
(4) If procedural rules protect mental impressions and case preparation generated independently by lay litigants or criminal defendants using AI tools without attorney supervision.
(5) How judicial protective orders prohibiting open consumer AI tools create a tier system in litigation, turning digital privacy into a luxury for wealthy litigants while exposing pro se and low-income litigants to privilege waivers and sanctions.
(6) Whether the analysis changes, in any issue above, if the client is represented or unrepresented.
Submissions & Important Dates:
- Please submit materials or proposals to lawreview@nova.edu
- Or directly to the Editor-in-Chief, Alex Recio, ar4328@mynsu.nova.edu
- Submission Deadline for Article: February 1, 2027